But heiko makes a point. If an unsupported package still worked, without compiling or something like that, why would you drop it? The idea with a new "unsupported" repo is not bad. You have got the binaries, but you are also saying: "this program will probably not work. We take no responsibility" "Ng Oon-Ee" <ngoonee@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb: >On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 16:47 +0100, Andrea Scarpino wrote: >> On Wednesday 17 November 2010 16:37:41 甘露(Gan Lu) wrote: >> > If some says "this is shame", "I'm leaving", >> > "you suck", "developers are selfish", you could certainly discard >> > them, but not I or Heiko, we just talk about our opinion. >> > Does a great community contain only TU/devs? Does Arch is driven by >> > them alone? If you think so what a upstream developer will think >you >> > are? >> A tester. >> >I lol-ed. > >And Gan Lu, I'm not sure which thread you've been following, but Heiko >specifically references something along the lines of "I may as well go >back to Gentoo". > >In the end this just sounds like "I'm going to whine because MY >packages >got deprecated". Repeatedly I see unfounded statements like 'popular >and >important packages'. Something like firefox or gcc is popular and >important. The rest is niche. If the devs want to maintain them, fine, >there's rules for that. If not, just go and compile it. It moves the >burden of work to the person who cares about the package (which is >obviously not the dev). -- This message has been sent from my android phone with k-9 mail
